The Supreme Court was unable to consider a petition to review a copyright case after a rare lack of quorum due to four justices recusing themselves from evaluating the petition.
The high court announced in an order list that because they lacked a quorum in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter, the lower court’s ruling would be affirmed as if the justices never took up the case, the same way that a deadlock at the Supreme Court would affirm a lower court’s ruling. The case dealt with whether, when copyright reverts to authors or their heirs under U.S. law, that applies only to the U.S. copyright or to copyright worldwide. The dispute between major music labels and artists led to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which found that the reversion of copyright applies to the worldwide copyright, not just copyright in the United States. Because of the lack of quorum, the 5th Circuit’s ruling will stand.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson recused themselves from weighing the case, leaving only five eligible justices to consider the petition, which is one short of the six justices needed for a quorum. The four justices did not provide a reason for their recusal, but all of them have published with Penguin Random House, whose parent company also owns BMG Rights Management.
Monday’s lack of quorum marks the first time since May 2025 that enough justices recused themselves from weighing a case that the high court was unable to consider it for oral arguments. Last year, the Supreme Court was unable to take up a copyright infringement case, Baker v. Coates, after the same four justices, along with Justice Samuel Alito, recused themselves. The high court did not explain the rationale for the recusals, though the case also involved Penguin Random House’s parent company, which was likely the reason for the same four justices’ recusal, while Alito’s reason for recusal was less apparent.
Only one case in the Supreme Court’s current term has seen a recusal, Suncor Energy v. Boulder, where Alito removed himself from the case a week before oral arguments after scrutiny over his financial interests in oil companies. The major case deals with whether costly climate damage lawsuits brought by state and local governments against oil companies can go forward.
WHY SPECULATION ABOUT JUSTICE ALITO’S FUTURE CONTINUES DESPITE HIS REJECTION OF RETIREMENT
In the same orders list Monday, the high court granted review of two major cases, including over whether a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on home distilling of alcohol is unconstitutional, and in a case regarding alleged racial discrimination in Montgomery County, Maryland’s admissions policy for magnet middle schools.
The Supreme Court is next set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 2, with the next orders list from the justices expected on Nov. 9.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
